| Number One Stupid and Irresponsible Comment On Dr. Tiller |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 6/02/09 |
|
A man has been shot to death -- an act of violence that everyone should abhor. No pro-lifer may kill as a protest against abortion. The contradiction is recognized prima facie. But in the flood of blame against pro-lifers on the slaying of Dr. Tiller comes one that stands out for its crass stupidity and bumptious irreponsibility. Catholic Democrats, one of the many groups providing Catholic cover for President Barack Obama, is headed by a fellow named Dr. Patrick Whelan. Catholic Democrats issued a statement about Tiller's death referencing me, Fr. Frank Pavone, and George Weigel; Whelan then makes the following comment (Emphasis added):
First, the stupidity: How was Dr. George Tiller not pro-abortion? He made his living as an abortionist, and specialized in late-term abortions. I would say pro-abortion -- meaning literally "for-abortion" -- is an accurate description of Dr. Tiller. (By the way, Dr. Whelan is on the pediatrics faculty at Harvard Medical School. You just can't trust labels anymore, can you?) Now the irresponsiblity: Whelan argues that my use of the adjectival "pro-abortion" is "contributing to the penchant toward violence that was on display again today." So according to Whelan I am "contributing" toward the "violence," i.e., the shooting of Dr. Tiller. It is simply irresponsible for grown-ups to accuse people of having a hand in horrible acts when there is no discernible evidence for the connection. In Dr. Whelan's world, if you can label suicide bombers "terrorists" you are either guilty of encouraging the violence of their terrorism or the violence of those who are determined to stop them. How then should we describe them? Angry? Agitated? Maladjusted? Self-destructive? Oops, that last one may be too close to the truth. But the Dr. Whelans of the world don't care about the words they use, or their meaning, when they are busy making political points. Truth doesn't matter -- all that matters is making the assertion and hoping someone will believe it. I am reminded of kids in the "terrible twos" who thrash about in temper tantrums oblivious of causing themselves or others harm. I should add that Catholic Democrats' statement is also "disengenuous." Take a look at this nifty move: "Any Catholic public figure who insults someone else with the 'pro-abortion' label is actually hurting the anti-abortion cause by obstructing common ground solutions, sowing division within our Church... So Catholic Democrats is "anti-abortion" and seeking "common-ground solutions"? I guess that's why it supports every pro-abortion Democrat in the Congress and the administration! A few days ago I made some comments to a friend about the political "right" and "left." He cut me off and said, "That's not the best way to describe it. The real difference is between those who believe words mean something and those who do not." Amen!
Readers have left 35 comments. Blaming the pro-life movement (which correctly labels abortionists as pro-abortion) for Dr. Tiller’s murder would be the equivalent of blaming Al Gore for the deeds of the Unabomber, since Gore’s book “Earth in the balance” was found among Ted Kaczynski’s belongings. Dr. Whelan’s comments are absurd. Written by Francis Wippel Francis, good point! Just think of all the misfits inspired by J. D. Salinger! Written by Deal Hudson "One soldier killed, one injured by Islam convert in Arkansas shooting" AP: "A Muslim convert "with political and religious motives" shot two uniformed soldiers outside an Arkansas military recruiting center Monday, killing one and wounding the other, authorities said. Police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, …" I wonder if the MSM will blame Muslims in general for this murder ... Written by Mark I hope this comment is not deleted or disallowed. I offer the following as context for some of the Tiller stories: http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/kansasstories.html Evidence to the contrary is welcome. Written by Anonymous "It is not enough to denounce violence," said Dr Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats. "Any Catholic public figure who insults someone else with the 'pro-slavery' label is actually hurting the anti-slavery cause by obstructing common ground solutions, sowing division within our Church, and contributing to the penchant toward violence that was on display again today. There is nothing Catholic about the kind of angry language that falsely blames slavery on our elected officials, when it is our job as people of faith to work constructively toward a society in which no one chooses to own a slave." Written by Deacon Ed It's not clear how Whelan knows what he claims to know. After all, could not someone say this, "Because the current occupant of the White House endorsed a book by a domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, it gives unbalanced citizens like Roeder the misleading impression that terrorism is morally permissible. No one who is responsible should endorse a book by a domestic terrorist." That, of course, is a completely stupid argument. But it is of the same quality that Whelan offers. At the end of the day, Whelan opines the way he does because he knows the prejudices of his audience. So, instead of elevating the discourse by offering a charitable understanding of the prolife movement, he presents it in the worst possible light. This nurtures in the souls of his readers bad habits of civic engagement. Thus, ironically, in order for Whelan to get away with disrespecting prolifers he must disrespect his own audience.  Written by Francis Beckwith "Anonymous" wants readers to put Tiller in the context of stories found on a web site called A Heartbreaking Choice -- a support site for people who consider abortion an acceptable alternative when faced with the news that their child has an abnormality, disease or disability. I don't doubt for a second that many people suffer emotionally when making the choice to abort a child. Many of these people believe that killing can be the compassionate choice as long as their intent is to eradicate suffering. The direct, intentional killing of a child is wrong - whether that child is grossly deformed, handicapped or ill. No amount of personal intent or grief over what was "right for you" can change this fact. Written by Zoe Anonymous, There is no context whatsoever which can justify Tiller's bloody work. I may not be thankful for the circumstances but I will not apologize for being sorry the man's work is at an end. Deal, Instead of right/left, etc. -- I rather liked what Mary Ann Glendon had to say in her recent appearance on The World Over Live. Instead of activist v. strict constructionist judges, she used the terms romantic and classicist. I think those are apt terms in general for what we now so often call left and right. It would also allow those of us who are classical liberals to reclaim the "L" word. Kamilla Written by Kamilla That should be, "not being sorry the man's work is at an end." Zoe, Anonymous rather makes one wonder if he is a student of Peter Singer's, eh? By the extension of the logic offered on that site we could justify the direct killing of Terri Schiavo, Christopher Reeve, Michael J Fox, Patrick Swayze, Farrah Fawcett and the precious little boy with Down's Syndrome in my friend's church who is sweet beyond words and loved by all who know him. After all, early-term versus late-term versus post-term, what's the difference? They could even justifiably take the life of my friend Bob who has severe cerebral palsy and whose "unworthy" life has ministered to so many. His daily care has been the crucible which has formed more than one young man into a godly husband, a precious and worthy gift to more than one young bride. Bob, who cannot bathe, clothe, or feed himself has been in so many weddings he's bought his own tuxedo. Don't tell me he would have been better off dead. He wouldn't agree and neither would any of his friends. Kamilla Written by Kamilla Dear Zoe and Kamilla, Did either of you read the stories? I ask not in meanness, but because they do not represent the killing of third-trimester infants ~merely~ because of deformity, abnormality, Down's Syndrome, disease, etc. All had received doctor's advice that the mothers might not survive the pregnancy or that the child might die in childbirth or shortly thereafter. Those opinions were delivered with a high degree of professional probability/certainty. Now these women might lack courage in some instances, but they're not circumlocuters who set out with a preconceived notion about being rid of their babies. But in every case, laws without exceptions forced them to Kansas. Let's be reasonable with regard to the evidence presented. - Anon Written by Anonymous Anonymous wants evidence to the contrary - Some of today's television line-up on Health.Discovery Channel Medical Incredible - Fingers for Britany -Building four fully sensory fingers for baby Brittany; the killer Prader Willi Syndrome; reshaping a baby's head with wire springs. Mystery Diagnosis -The Black and Blue Baby -Holly is overjoyed when her second child, Hannah Hannum is born, but soon realizes she looks like she has Down's Syndrome. The Baby Diaries Adoption Stories Babies: Special Delivery - Visit the high-risk maternity ward at Community Medical Center in Fresno, to hear about the conditions that the women must help their babies overcome. Some of these inexplicable problems are a dislocated intestine, low heart rate and infection. Maternity Ward Birth Day - High risk pregnancies 1 A 41-year-old mom with high blood pressure and a recent heart attack requires a c-section to ease the cardiac stress of delivery. Pregnancy-induced hypertension and diabetes threaten the pregnancy of a third-time mother. Birth Day - Baton Rouge Babies - Three Baton Rouge mothers face complications during delivery. One mom suffers from a rare condition that makes healthy labor impossible. Labor fails to progress for a second mother and a 22-year-old suffers from renal failure, diabetes, and hypertension. Deliver Me: Home Edition - Elsa del Rio, a first-time mom and third year medical school has a very demanding schedule. Doctors order her to stop her rotations and take it easy when they discover her baby is not growing at a normal rate. Adoption Stories Bringing Home Baby Identical Quads: Perilous Pregnancy Deliver Me These stories all speak of LIFE. Through the tears of many comes joy and love. I don't think we will ever see, The Abortion Stories - close up and personal, because no one wants to see babies dismembered, crushed, burned. Mothers (which they are) hardly ever see their aborted children. Written by Amy Dear Zoe and Kamilla, — AnonymousDid either of you read the stories? I ask not in meanness, but because they do not represent the killing of third-trimester infants ~merely~ because of deformity, abnormality, Down's Syndrome, disease, etc. All had received doctor's advice that the mothers might not survive the pregnancy or that the child might die in childbirth or shortly thereafter. Those opinions were delivered with a high degree of professional probability/certainty. Now these women might lack courage in some instances, but they're not circumlocuters who set out with a preconceived notion about being rid of their babies. But in every case, laws without exceptions forced them to Kansas. Let's be reasonable with regard to the evidence presented. - Anon I've been reading some similar stories on another blog. Some of the comments are stupid, but some are heartbreaking. In the spirit of President Obama's search for "common ground", can we get a majority of support for laws that restrict abortions except in the very small number of cases where the pregnancies are actually threatening the lives of the pregnant mothers? Assuming these cases exist (situations similar to ectopic pregnancies), I believe an overwhelming majority of people on both sides of this debate might support allowing abortion in that one very limited circumstance. (I know that Catholic tradition doesn't call these situations "abortions", but from a legal/medical point of view, I believe they still are.) Written by Jason Negri Just saw this in a comment from "Beth" on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360: "Dr. Tiller and his clinic would only provide late term abortions to women whose pregnancies were severely compromised, and he required extensive proof of having such a condition." Amy: I do appreciate your citations, but when a "miracle" or an "incredible" coming through occurs, well, that doesn't work with medical professionals giving their best guesses on third-trimester infants. FYI: "Anonymous" (me) is a pro-life Catholic. I'm just diving into this 3rd trimester stuff a bit deeper than I have before thanks to the to-do over Tiller's death. Written by Anonymous I just listened to this - Tiller packaged his killing of babies to make it "natural" for the parents to accept. Talk about one sick individual. What is even sadder is he convinced his family to believe his "occupation" was valid. The blood money - does anyone know if it kept his family living in a high income tax bracket, living in a high dollar house, neighborhood, amenities, etc? http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/tiller-audio.htm Written by Amy Did either of you read the stories? — AnonYes, Anon, I did read many of the stories. A couple were from parents who really wanted a healthy baby and didn't want to bring a severely handicapped or disabled baby into the world and into their lives. To your points: First, if a mother's life is in danger, and saving her means the child indirectly dies, that's not abortion. Let's also keep in mind that childbirth is not and can not be perfectly safe. Women used to die in tragic numbers and still do in developing countries that lack the medical advancements and prenatal care we have. Even with modern medicine, there are risks to pregnancy. A friend of mine almost died in childbirth two years ago. Everything should be done to save a woman, but pretending pregnancy can always and everywhere be problem-free is naive. And not all children are healthy. That's also a fact of life. If we believe we're owed flawless pregnancies and children and lives, we're in trouble. Second, if the child may die during birth or after birth, that doesn't justify killing him or her in the womb beforehand. No where did I say the women in stories like these went into pregnancy with "preconceived notion about being rid of their babies." In fact, I stated that I believe many people who decide on abortions suffer in making that decision. But distress or sadness doesn't change a thing about the evil of directly killing a child. I have a sister with Down Syndrome. Her life is no more or no less valuable than any of her siblings. And that is true not simply because my mother decided it was true, but because the value of human life is objective and universal, not subjective and arbitrary. The most dangerous mindset of all is the one that believes killing weaker human beings is compassionate. Written by Zoe Romanowsky (I know that Catholic tradition doesn't call these situations "abortions", but from a legal/medical point of view, I believe they still are.) — JasonThey may be all categorized the same way, but the Church differentiates between directly killing a child in the womb through saline, vacuum, etc. and the unfortunate event of a child dying indirectly because of working to save the life of the mother. In the second case, the embryo or fetus is not directly attacked, but in being removed from is or her mother's womb, can not live on its own. Written by Zoe Romanowsky "FYI: "Anonymous" (me) is a pro-life Catholic. I'm just diving into this 3rd trimester stuff a bit deeper than I have before thanks to the to-do over Tiller's death." - Anonymous Is that the "trimester" during which God ceases to be our Creator? Written by Mark Zoe, I agree with about 3/4 of your last post, especially your last sentence. But you wrote: "If a mother's life is in danger, and saving her means the child indirectly dies, that's not abortion." Absolutely---and that is exactly my point. There were 6 or so stories at that site, and 4, I believe, involved danger to the mother. This is also the case with the Anderson Cooper 360 story and a few of its comments. Of course there's some subjectivity at work in our readings of these stories---there always will be. But let's assume that 50 percent are depressingly "legitimate" actions of women forced to go to Tiller. If those are not abortions, then some significant portion of the work Tiller did was not abortion. Rather he was performing an extremely sad and depressing service that was perhaps unjustly outlawed in other states. I'm not here to radically disagree (or score points, Amy). We're all pro-lifers, even if we disagree on some aspects of how to express the same. - Anon Written by Anonymous "FYI: "Anonymous" (me) is a pro-life Catholic. I'm just diving into this 3rd trimester stuff a bit deeper than I have before thanks to the to-do over Tiller's death." - Anonymous — MarkIs that the "trimester" during which God ceases to be our Creator? Please, Mark, do read my careful comments above. That's deliberately inflammatory in light of my choice of words in the thread. - Anon Written by Anonymous They may be all categorized the same way, but the Church differentiates between directly killing a child in the womb through saline, vacuum, etc. and the unfortunate event of a child dying indirectly because of working to save the life of the mother. In the second case, the embryo or fetus is not directly attacked, but in being removed from is or her mother's womb, can not live on its own. If an anencephalic child (who is not going to live more than a few hours after birth) is causing increasingly life-threatening complications for his mother, would you oppose pre-term delivery of that child, perhaps by C-Section, and him being given to his mother to hold until he dies? Written by Jason Negri Is that the "trimester" during which God ceases to be our Creator? — MarkMark, don't be an ass. That was misplaced. Written by Regis Absolutely---and that is exactly my point. There were 6 or so stories at that site, and 4, I believe, involved danger to the mother. This is also the case with the Anderson Cooper 360 story and a few of its comments. Of course there's some subjectivity at work in our readings of these stories---there always will be. But let's assume that 50 percent are depressingly "legitimate" actions of women forced to go to Tiller. — AnonymousIf those are not abortions, then some significant portion of the work Tiller did was not abortion. Rather he was performing an extremely sad and depressing service that was perhaps unjustly outlawed in other states. Anonymous, "danger to the mother" comes in all forms. sometimes it really is a true life or death threat to the woman, sometimes it isn't. A pregnancy that has become dangerous in the third trimester (which begins at 28 weeks) is usually handled by treating the mother (as effectively as possible) and buying time to get the child to a point of viability (as early as 23 weeks) and then removing him or her from the mother. This is the normative, medical way of respecting the lives of both mother and child in a precarious situation. Dr. Tiller wasn't doing anything but direct abortion in his clinic - meaning directly attacking/killing the fetus in the womb and removing it. Many of these children were the age of viability. Written by Zoe Romanowsky I would love to be able to call the bluff and restrict abortion to those very "hard cases" described in Anon's link, which amount to something less than 1% of abortions. Also, cases involving "rape, incest or life of the mother" also amount to a small percentage of abortions (3% I think). The problem is that these hard cases have been used to justify abortion at will for over thirty years. As an aside, Anon should familiarize herself with the legal case that was brought against George Tiller in which an expert doctor reviewed records from Tiller's clinic that showed that he was also performing late-term abortions because mothers did not want to get fat or wanted to go to a rock concert. Let's not make this guy into something he was not. Written by David If an anencephalic child (who is not going to live more than a few hours after birth) is causing increasingly life-threatening complications for his mother, would you oppose pre-term delivery of that child, perhaps by C-Section, and him being given to his mother to hold until he dies? — JasonOf course not! That would be in the best interest of both mother and child, respecting both of their lives. Written by Zoe Romanowsky As an aside, Anon should familiarize herself with the legal case that was brought against George Tiller in which an expert doctor reviewed records from Tiller's clinic that showed that he was also performing late-term abortions because mothers did not want to get fat or wanted to go to a rock concert. Let's not make this guy into something he was not. — DavidFrom what I understand, the procedure for partial-birth abortion is long and difficult, actually not much easier than an actual delivery. Can anyone verify? Maybe these women should be delivering their babies early instead and putting them up for adoption as premies. Many would be willing to adopt at least the healthy babies that are now being aborted. If the abortion doctor is truly compassionate, as some claim Tiller was, then there should be no problem with presenting the mothers with a waiting list of potential adoptive parents as an alternative to a partial birth abortion. Written by meg Anon, Yes, I did look through the stories. One thing those on your side fail to acknowledge is that these third trimester abortions are actually more dangerous for the mother than delivering the child early - either by induced labor or by c-section. In addition to the dangers of the abortion itself is the long-recognized medical and psychological consequences to a woman who chooses to end the life of the child growing in her womb. We don't murder children in their mother's wombs based on possibilities any more than we murder adults undergoing dangerous surgery - after all, they might possibly not survive so let's just get it over with and kill them now, right? My friends have two healthy baby girls right now because they refused to bow to medical advice to kill one for the sake of the other - twin to twin transfusion syndrome was the diagnosis. Rather than taking the life of one twin for her own convenience and the reasonable chance of a healthier one daughter, mom underwent 11 weeks of dangerous, arduous work - most of it on her back, alone in a hospital bed more than 50 miles from her home - for the sake of both her children. And her sacrifice was rewarded. The girls are now over a week old and healthy, growing babies. I've been a Christian and in healthcare too long and seen too many miracles to believe taking an innocent human life based on possibilites is EVER justified. You and those mothers on that website make me profoundly sad. Not only for the taking of the innocent human life but for the joy, virtue and love that are to be found in suffering. There is beauty, it surely is a terrible beauty, but it is beauty to be found in living and giving to a life that is less than perfect. Kamilla P.S. Zoe, thank you so much for your responses as well. Written by Kamilla There are many stories, including at least a couple at the Kansas stories site, that emphasize the emotional importance to women's health of saying good-bye to a child not capable of developing and living. As a young law professor, I knew just such a woman - who could easily have aborted (her child lived under an hour)and written a compelling Kansas story - but she chose, instead, to bring the child to birth, involve the family in welcoming and baptizing the child and keeping vigil until the child died. I've known others who, anxious to get rid of the suffering, aborted and did not "look" (which of course would not be soothing in the event of saline burning or dismemberment techniques). The story told by Kelly to Bill O'Reilly at Fox news comes to mind, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMC_70oYV8U, a Kansas story that I note is not linked with the other stories. So, I think, the nature of females - to want to at least know the young they have conceived and carried - is contained in the short-cut formulation of the Church's ancient teaching against abortion. It's tempting, always, to try to shortcut suffering and pain, but, in the end, it's that suffering and pain that can bring understanding and resolution and finality. (Similarly, I recall a woman whose child was stillborn. Her greatest regret? "I did not look him and hold him. I should have." I hope this contributes to the discussion here. I hope, also, that the practices of late-term abortion and the impact on women's emotional health will be studied and compared to bringing such children to birth. Sadly, it's this sort of "female impact study" which the abortion lobby has successfully opposed with rhetoric about "rights" and "equality" and no real regard for women, their unborn and the spiritual health of both. Written by Marjorie Campbell George Weigel once said "Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas can have lethal consequences." Maybe Whelan judges Mr. Weigel too harshly? Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone lead you astray with empty philosophy and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the evil powers of this world, and not from Christ. Maybe the left and the right need to spend more time on what Christ has to teach. Written by Otis Was Pope Gregory XIII pro-life when he called for the Assassination of Queen Elizabeth, Dec 12th, 1580 ? “Since that guilty woman of England rules over two such noble Kingdoms of Christendom, and is the cause of so much injury to the catholic faith, and loss of so many million souls, there is no doubt that whosoever sends her out of the world with the pious intention of doing God service, not only does not sin but gains merit, especially having regard to the sentence pronounced against her by Pius V of holy memory. And so, if those English nobles decide actually to undertake so glorious a work, your Lordship can assure them that they do not commit any sin. We trust in God also that they will escape danger. As far as concerns your Lordship, in case you have incurred any irregularity, the Pope bestows on you his holy benediction.” Written by Greg Pres. Obama & Sec. Clinton have both expressed that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." Here's a 3-step program to achieve their expressed goal. Step #1 - Divide all tax money given to Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers by 3. Step #2 - Give two-thirds of the money to Crisis Pregancy Centers, Gabriel Project, Project Rachel and other Pro-Life organizations, and leave only one-third for the abortion organizations. This would be agreeable because we all know that common ground includes a common preference for life over abortion, i.e., giving more money to life-based organizations will, as Mr. Whelan says "work constructively toward a society in which no one chooses to have an abortion." Step #3 - Take the remaining one-third of the tax money away from abortion organizations, and give 100% to the Pro-Life organizations. Allow abortion advocates to support abortion organizations out of their own charitable donations. RESULT: abortion will be "safe, legal and very rare." Written by Chris from Maryland Deal, It's one thing to label Dr Tiller as "pro-abortion." But my comments on the subject were directed at the indiscriminate use of the term "pro-abortion" to describe anyone (mostly Democratic leaders) who disagree with your interpretation of the best way to confront the abortion issue. Calling them "pro-abortion" may be good for conservative fundraising purposes, but it is hurtful to the cause of actually saving babies. Written by Patrick Whelan Dr Whelan makes very good points, if what you care about MOST is reducing the number of abortions in this world. If you prefer scoring points about what's right and wrong, based on religious beliefs in a world with more belief systems than anyone can count, then stay the course of angry rhetoric. But know that if it is only the latter, and you impede the former, more babies will be dead as a result of your choice, even if that is not your intent. Abortion is, in the end more frequently an economic matter for most women who get them, than it is a moral one. After years of an abortion debate in the United States, we have tried all sorts of systems -- legal, illegal, legal with reservations -- except the practical...actually looking at the reasons that women have abortions in the United States, and building public policy to decrease their desire or perceived need to do so. Simply put, whether or not it is legal, the number of abortions in practice correlate with rising and falling economic circumstances and the availability of health care, and a host of other inexplicably dull, practical things that cost tax money to provide to women who can't afford them on their own. As we KNOW from watching the economics, social policy, and abortion rates of the past few decades, if you want fewer abortions, reduce poverty and unaffordable prenatal and child health care costs. But conservative politics doesn't allow a "tax and spend" solution to the abortion debate, even if the evidence screams it would do the most good, most quickly. It turns out that practicing the social gospel, where the Catholic church leads the world by example and dedication, may just be the key to a true win in the abortion debate as well. Without question, many millions of children would be borne alive and well as a result of this shift of focus. Blessings to you all as you love God's children Written by Finance Girl Deal, — Patrick WhelanIt's one thing to label Dr Tiller as "pro-abortion." But my comments on the subject were directed at the indiscriminate use of the term "pro-abortion" to describe anyone (mostly Democratic leaders) who disagree with your interpretation of the best way to confront the abortion issue. Calling them "pro-abortion" may be good for conservative fundraising purposes, but it is hurtful to the cause of actually saving babies. Patrick. I am not a supporter of the right or the left. For me it is all about Christ. And I am sorry, but I found your comments incredibly wrongheaded. Faith in the past decade has been tainted by politics by people like yourself and yes by people like Deal. I still refer to Weigels quote: George Weigel once said "Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas can have lethal consequences." Please take note Patrick. And also: Colossians 2:8 Don't let anyone lead you astray with empty philosophy and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the evil powers of this world, and not from Christ. Maybe the left and the right need to spend more time on what Christ has to teach. If you are going to operate in the political arena as a "Christian" then you need to accept what the bible says. Not bits and pieces that fit a certain political agenda. Written by Otis Dr. Whelan, I appreciate your comment because it clarifies your objection. You object to the "indiscriminate" use of the pro-abortion label to describe those Democratic Party politicians who "disagree" with my "interpretation of the best way to confront the abortion issue." I agree with your concern about indiscriminate use of the label since it would tend to cut off further discussion of the matter. Let me suggest some guidelines that can be used to justify the pro-abortion label in the future. I would be grateful to hear your thoughts on this. A politician can be accurately described as pro-abortion when he or she 1) has a perfect, or nearly perfect, NARAL rating, and 2) evinces no desire, as you put it, to "confront" abortion as something to be minimized, at the very least, in our nation. Politicians who talk about "abortion reduction" while supporting the public funding of abortion and the removal of every abortion restriction are, to put it nicely, unintelligible. Written by Deal Hudson |
"It is not enough to denounce violence," said Dr Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats. "Any Catholic public figure who insults someone else with the 'pro-abortion' label is actually hurting the anti-abortion cause by obstructing common ground solutions, sowing division within our Church, and
|
 |
